Censorship envy and licensing

Why we don't have political terms in our licenses (even for really important issues).

by David "Novalis" Turner

Nuclear war is a really bad thing.

It's so bad that we want to work really hard to avoid it. As the
copyright holders of a whole bunch of free software, FSF has a lot of
power. So, why do we permit the use of free software in nuclear
weapons?

The GPL represents a truce between mutually hostile powers. Gigantic
companies, who compete relentlessly in other areas, cooperate to
improve the GNU C Compiler and other free software. And individuals
from rival political movements, from communists to libertarians to
radical anarchists hack on Free Software. I've met Free Software
hackers who are evangelical vegans, and Free Software hackers who
drive SUVs.

So, let's say we decided that version 3 of the GPL would contain a
clause which would forbid you from using GPL software in nuclear
weapons. The anti-nuclear activists would be very happy. But what
about the anti-torture activists? Or people who oppose genetically
modified foods, or the free biotech people? They would all be
understandably upset that their pet cause is being neglected. And the
nuclear engineers wouldn't be real happy about it either. Eugene
Volokh makes the same point about free speech in general:

So, we reject restrictions on who can use free software, or what it
can be used for. By keeping everyone on a level playing field, we get
the widest possible participation in the free software movement. And
the anti-nuclear activists are still free to use free software to
organize and spread their ideas.